impactiii 2024-10-17 12:10 a.m.Also by the way the deadline doesn’t really matter. I brought up the fact that I needed him to give me the records multiple times. He was under affirmative duty—he knew this too and made it clear that he understood. He was very much aware of the existing Brady Order and what it entailed he would have to disclose. He also knew that his duty to disclose was “ongoing” and, even if I didn’t ask for it, he would have to disclose all impeachment evidence of the witness to me; despite that, he ignored me several times, told me to shut the fuck up, and here we are now. The deadline doesn’t matter—he was being compelled by a court order.
He also knew about the fact that his witness, Notjedi0625, was a “crime alt” (meaning it had a criminal record—as has been shown too) way before I did. He knew it had records then and now and didn’t disclose any of them until now after all this mess that he created.
You and I are very familiar with the record in this case. And so is he.
The relevant case law here supports sanctions for failure to adhere to the Brady Order. To escape a Brady sanction, disclosure "must be made at a time when the disclosure would be of value to the accused." United States v. Davenport, 753 F.2d 1460, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (collecting cases). Disclosing evidence to me the day that the pretrial window closed was absolutely intentional and he knew what he was doing—he kept trying to me to gather his impeachment evidence that *he was compelled and had a duty to disclose on my own. Nonetheless, his intent doesn’t even matter because civil contempt doesn’t take intent into account when someone defies a court order—like the State Attorney did here. See Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
If he’s allowed to get away with this with nothing happening, then it’s just gonna keep happening. Not just in this case but in others too.